DanStewart

It's also worth noting that in the DI world it is feasible to build a camera with terrible registration if it saves on cost. I have some work done on a servomotor driven design that could do high speed and change frame size electronically (2- 4 perf, switching out the gate of course). It's registration is awful but it puts a sync dot between the perfs aatoncode style so as long as you're scanning the neg you can software register perfectly in post. It would also be extremely quiet since there is no mechanical movement.

Well it's neither one thing or the other - if he labours over the wings expressing some reason for their creation, fine, but if (as scripted) you are just showing the 'finishing touches' to establish that he made the wings himself without including any emotional relevance to that action then I would immediately think about cutting it if pos - and it is very pos. Matter of taste of course.

It's a script point but I'd skip him messing about with the wings and start on him at the edge - just get the art dept to make the wings LOOK homemade and you've told the story. There are many ways to treat the cliff edge stuff but you've given no info on mood - David sounds like he's going for a magic realism thing with the moonlit matte - does the kid magically fly or smash into the ground? Have a look at the intro to Goldeneye for a nice dramatic reveal of the drop.

Talk to JDC in London - they have a set that goes all the way out to (I think) 18mm, PL mount.

I heard the US pilot had been shot and canned...

I think this works a treat in the new Battlestar Galactica. Really nice to see a new approach to sci fi. Also using docu-style zooms for empahasis in drama is super effective - if you zoomed into someone's face for a reaction they really don't have to act much, since the zoom makes the moment work.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=70

If you want to shoot 24fps 35mm nice and steady, a well conditioned 2c will do you just fine and rent for a fraction of the price of an arricam. For sync, a BL4, Aaton 35-3, or a moviecam, and for high speed an arri 3. (With decent glass of course.) No matter how much money you have, it's about spending it wisely. A shiny, lightweight beauty with digital readouts and heated eyepiece is always nice but for the money you could have another few days shooting, a better lighting or grip package, or a better location.

Actually he's a strapping six footer in the Brendan Frasier mould. Back in London, pint, anyone?

Check out the archives in the steadicam forum.

I've never handheld a BL4 but I wouldn't fancy trying it. The Super America and the Gold are of comparible weight as far as I remember, but the SA is rather more unweildy and uncomfortable. I get the feeling none of these cameras were really meant to be staggered around with. Can you schedule the handheld stuff for one day and rent a compact, or even have a 2c B camera if the shots can be mute? BTW anyone used the 235 yet? Can it be blimped at all?

I'd expect fog movement to be an issue on a long exposure on a shot like this. At the least you'll probably get an apparent decrease in sharpness. I agree with the minature or mother nature approach. Maybe perfect timing at dawn would lift the ambient level without taking away too much - I think it's good advice not to push more than 2 stops. I don't think you can fake the fog at full size. As for the bluescreen approach, it's a possibility to do whatever you need to get the exposure on the b/g and comp in the f/g action from a shot taken at almost the same time. But the fog will give your compositor a headache. This shot is too nice to try and reproduce with CG. Best of luck.

Brad - how dare you. That's like suggesting Britney isn't the finest musician alive.

Whatever you've been smoking, pass it around.

Welcome to the forum. ...I'm not arguing that point. SW created a massive revenue stream (at the expense of creating the blockbuster era) and that money was put back into movies and associated technologies, which is great. But I don't think Lucas single-handedly invented any of the stuff you mention, and since the question is the validity of his newfound solipsistic philosohopy you've made the same point. And yes, lately he is a hack.

It amazes me anyone is still interested in what GL says. He's got it in him to make good movies when he's desperate and hungry enough to do so (THX, AG, the first SW), but has since dedicated his life to getting as rich as possible - and that's it. He should be congratulated for achieving his goals but what the hell has it got to do with serious film-making? If anyone here gets in a position where they can completely produce a $100m movie without breaking a sweat or ever getting up before midday, and every idiot in the western world (myself included) will pay $20 irrespective of it's quality, then more power to you. He thinks he can say and do anything he likes without it coming back to him in any way, and well, he's right. I'm surprised to find such interest in him on this forum.

This is really nice work Phil!

Very nice. Reminds me a bit of Harry Savides' work in 'The Game'.

The NFTS is highly thought of by most people, and the standard of teaching is high as far as I can judge from its graduates. It is very difficult to get in as there are only 3 or 4 places for brits every year and a LOT of applications, so don't be too down if rejected. They do have an open day to look around and talk to the staff. LFS is as you say a general course - it's main strength is the number of 16 and 35mm shoots you can do in the 2 years (and usually a 3rd 'unofficial year' if you are asked to shoot grad films). A friend of mine spent 360 days of his last two years there on set. That's insanely excessive, but there's not much he doesn't know about gaffing and sparking, and his DP reel is getting nice too. Not bad for a 25 year old guy. LFS is VERY expensive though, and if you can't do diplomacy and don't like to drink in the bar you may not get the films or jobs you want. I wouldn't be negative about either course, or the AFI which is apparently a very high standard. But the most important thing to remember is that you can only teach so much. If you are not watching movies, making movies, taking pictures, experimenting with looks, filters, composition, cutting and camera movement then a few hours of classes a week won't help you. Knowledge comes from within - make your own plan to learn and then see who can best help you execute it. Don't expect anyone to come and pour wisdom into your head.

Yes, the execution is absolutely superhuman. But I also have problems with the scripts. However, I'm from Oxford and I know a LOT of childhood fans (though I never read them) and they ALL think the films are fantastic - so PJ must have done something right. If Orcs and wizards aren't your thing it's a little unfair to blame the film for failing to entertain you!

Are you sure that wasn't just the movie? (Apologies to Danny Cannon, but CSI is doing just fine so he can take it I'm sure)

What works well is bottling up all that rage and then, after 10 or 20 years of ruined films, preferably with your wife and kids at a matinee, totally lose it, start screaming, and beat someone to a pulp. If this happened more often people would think twice before answering that phone call.

That's what I thought. When they say only the green sequences were DI, I guess they are not counting FX shots, of which there were a huge number. Just the rotoscoping for the wire work must have been a quarter of the running time. If anyone has more info on the post route I'd like to know. As the film started I was convinced I was watching a 2k DI - something seemed ever so slightly off - a little softness or something I couldn't put my finger on. Of course I adjusted and by the end wasn't sure I hadn't imagained it.

I'm amazed! I thought it was all DI. How did they do the leaves??

Just got back from seeing Hero. All of the above techniques are used amazingly well - prod design, lighting and digital post. The images are stunning and very colourful. Perhaps it can even overcome the British joy in grey misery!